Ethics Energizer #3: Site Visit

1. Ethics Energizer #3: Site Visit During a national Baldrige site visit, an Examiner shares with the whole team that two organizations from his state are receiving Baldrige site visits that same week. Should he have disclosed this information to the team?

2. Ethics Energizer #3: Site Visit - response No, unless the information has been made public either in writing or verbally. Examples include newspaper articles, press conferences, etc. Information shared personally – one person contacting another – is not considered public. In this case the Examiner can share this news with the team, and would be well served to say where he or she got the information.

3. Comment Writing Lab II

4. equitable evaluation meaningful feedback insights on organizational maturity What comments should do: Let the applicant know what it does well – and what it needs to improve – specific to: 1. Criteria requirements 2. The particular organization 3. Evaluation factors (ADLI and LeTCI)

5. Results Strength Comment Results for several key customer requirements for products and services demonstrate positive trends for the past three years. Nutritional value and overall food variety (Figure 7.1-5) improved from a rating of 6 (on a 10-point scale) in 2005 to approximately 7 in 2006, approaching the state-best level of 8. From 2003 to 2006, the applicant’s On-Time Food Delivery to Member Agencies (Figure 7.1-6) increased from approximately 45% to more than 90; these results are the best for the IFBA in 2006 and are approaching the FBA best. These positive results indicate the applicant’s success in addressing its customer requirements of quality and variety of food, timeliness, and continuity of service.

6. Results Strength Comment – Criteria Language Results for several key customer requirements for products and services demonstrate positive trends for the past three years. Nutritional value and overall food variety (Figure 7.1-5) improved from a rating of 6 (on a 10-point scale) in 2005 to approximately 7 in 2006, approaching the state-best level of 8. From 2003 to 2006, the applicant’s On-Time Food Delivery to Member Agencies (Figure 7.1-6) increased from approximately 45% to more than 90%; these results are the best for the IFBA in 2006 and are approaching the FBA best. These positive results indicate the applicant’s success in addressing its customer requirements of quality and variety of food, timeliness, and continuity of service.

7. – Applicant Information Results Strength Comment Results for several key customer requirements for products and services demonstrate positive trends for the past three years. Nutritional value and overall food variety (Figure 7.1-5) improved from a rating of 6 (on a 10-point scale) in 2005 to approximately 7 in 2006, approaching the state-best level of 8. From 2003 to 2006, the applicant’s On-Time Food Delivery to Member Agencies (Figure 7.1-6) increased from approximately 45% to more than 90; these results are the best for the IFBA in 2006 and are approaching the FBA best. These positive results indicate the applicant’s success in addressing its customer requirements of quality and variety of food, timeliness, and continuity of service.

8. – Evaluation Factors (LeTCI) Results Strength Comment Results for several key customer requirements for products and services demonstrate positive trends[T] for the past three years. Nutritional value and overall food variety (Figure 7.1-5) improved from a rating of 6 (on a 10-point scale) in 2005 to approximately 7 in 2006, [T] approaching the state-best level of 8. [C] From 2003 to 2006, the applicant’s On-Time Food Delivery to Member Agencies (Figure 7.1-6) increased from approximately 45% to more than 90%; [T]these results are the best for the IFBA in 2006 and are approaching the FBA best. [C] These positive results indicate the applicant’s success in addressing its customer requirements of quality and variety of food, timeliness, and continuity of service.

9. Results OFI Comment Limited or no results are provided for several measures of workforce satisfaction and engagement related to the annual employee and volunteer survey. For example, while the applicant notes that it received a rating of 9 in 2006 for overall employee satisfaction (Figure 2.2-2), no trended data are provided for this measure. In addition, results are not presented for issues included in the survey amendment for employees, such as pay equity and support for career development. These gaps may make it difficult for the organization to evaluate the effectiveness of its workforce services and benefits or to meet its strategic challenge to optimize human resources.

10. Results OFI Comment Limited or no results [Le] are provided for several measures of workforce satisfaction and engagement related to the annual employee and volunteer survey. For example, while the applicant notes that it received a rating of 9 in 2006 for overall employee satisfaction (Figure 2.2-2), no trended data [T] are provided for this measure. In addition, results are not presented [Le] for issues included in the survey amendment for employees, such as pay equity and support for career development. These gaps may make it difficult for the organization to evaluate the effectiveness of its workforce services and benefits or to meet its strategic challenge to optimize human resources.

11. Comment WritingLab III -Key Themes

12. Thinking about Key Themes… • Do • Base KT comment on Item comment(s) • Develop KTs that are cross-cutting, thematic, and/or of particular importance to the applicant • Put some specific applicant information in the comment (e.g., examples, data, KFs) • Insert some Criteria language • Don’t • Cut and paste the entire Item comment(s) • Feel every bolded comment should lead to a separate Key Themes comment • Overwhelm the main point with details • Lose a higher-level perspective

13. More thinking about KTs… • Do • Include the most appropriate ADLI or LeTCI factor(s) • Change KT comments to reflect revisions to related Item comments • Don’t • Include all factors in a comment • Forget to review the key themes after Item Worksheets are finalized

14. And on Key Themes… • Link to Core Values as appropriate in strength KTs, and do not use them in OFI KTs • Balance KT strength and OFI comments to reflect the overall Process and Results scores • As in Item comment writing, remember to include: Criteria language, applicant information, and ADLI or LeTCI. Consider includingCore Values for strength comments.

15. Key Theme – Section A Comment The applicant demonstrates management by fact in its systematic use of a variety of strategic planning and knowledge management approaches. These include the FOODS Balanced Plate Scorecard (Figure 4.1-1), scheduled performance reviews of Harvest metrics, Baldrige-based self-assessments, SWOT Analyses, and Environmental Scans, as well as technological advances such as FoodAnswers and the Rapid Inventory Control Enterprise (RICE) system. The Balanced Plate Scorecard is built on the organization’s mission and key success factors and is linked to strategic objectives and action plans.

16. Key Theme – Section A Comment The applicant demonstrates management by fact in its systematic use of a variety of strategic planningandknowledge managementapproaches. [A]These include the FOODS Balanced Plate Scorecard (Figure 4.1-1), scheduled performance reviews of Harvest metrics, Baldrige-based self-assessments, SWOT Analyses, and Environmental Scans, as well as technological advances such as FoodAnswers and the Rapid Inventory Control Enterprise (RICE) system. The Balanced Plate Scorecard is built on the organization’s mission and key success factors and is linked to strategic objectives and action plans [I].

17. Key Theme – Section D Comment Although the organization segments its data for several measures, it does not use segmentation in many results related to its vision of Iowa’s heartland as hunger-free. For example, most of the product and service outcomes presented are not segmented by product and service types, customer groups, or market segments, andmost workforce-focused results are not segmented to address the diversity of the organization’s workforce or its various workforce groups (e.g., employees, core volunteers, general volunteers, and students and fellows). Lack of segmentation may limit the applicant’s ability to identify and focus its resources on those groups and areas most in need of improvement.

18. Key Theme – Section D Comment Although the organization segments its data for several measures, it does not use segmentation in many results related to its vision of Iowa’s heartland as hunger-free[I]. For example, most of the product and service outcomes presented are not segmented by product and service types, customer groups, or market segments, andmost workforce-focused results are not segmented to address the diversity of the organization’s workforce or its various workforce groups (e.g., employees, core volunteers, general volunteers, and students and fellows) [I].Lack of segmentation may limit the applicant’s ability to identify and focus its resources on those groups and areas most in need of improvement.